Our actions set the boundaries of what we accept our children to endure, we invite the future

which god in particular?

Is there something you arent getting through your thick skull? I am not arguing for the position just explaining the difference between a puritan and libertine perspective

You are clearly missing my point

No, your point makes no sense.

if you want to say "this is how some people think" that's fine, but to try to actually suggest theres a set of objective morals is ridiculous, because you're proving them to be subjective in the exact same sentence

By your definition of puritan everyone is a puritan because everybody has things they believe are objectively moral.

I can't find an objective reason not to kill, steal and murder, only with a view to the future does it make sense

you could argue that morality is in fact, a social construct 😉

R-Tao - because those things make it hard to work together with others.

and usually Working Together with someone is a higher net benefit than not working together with others.

Surely. We now have a challenge being in a larger country, where it's hard to escape alongside those you wish to share reality with, we expect the government to step in to shape the conditions

nah not even in a larger country just on an individual level.

Say you have a chicken and bob has a cow

you can either kill bob and take his cow

or you can trade some of your extra eggs with bob and have some of his extra milk.

@system11 you seem to still not know what obective morality even means

option 1 means in the long term..you now have to take care of both a cow and a chicken.

more work.

I might be wrong, but we only have these concerns because long established rule of law and morality have been let slip. And we refuse to kick offenders into the next realm.

@system11 most humans living today belive in objective morals (or at least purport to based on religion polling)

Just because people subjectively believe in different moralities does not proclude the possibility of a single metaphysically correct morality

let me know when you identify the objectively correct set of divine moralities. im sure the explanation will be breathtaking

Karma would be a bitch

@system11 you are clearly retarded

that must be it

@system11 - I imagine it would involve God showing up and spelling them out, which would technically be breathtaking.

i'd pay a fiver to see that

You here that god! someone said they would pay a fiver for you to show up and smite some fuckers

hear*

Poor brainlet cant understand the difference between advocacy of a position and neutrally explaining it

Even then there'd be mass denial, refusal in the face of the judge

not smite, just give us a list of morals, they could be carved into stone tablets or something. i want to see them do it though, no parlour tricks like having a prophet do it for them

well presumably God would have to prove he is the big cheese

and that would involve some smote

Crap, I was about to make a religion out of that..

Kek

Assuming our laws are just, defined to the minimum effect, and enforced with swift and reliable justice, we could forget having to rely on God making an appearance, he shouldn't have to roll up

Yes but that wouldn't make objective morality

that would just be us agreeing on a set of morals.

Haven't we already spent the last thousand years doing that?